EDITORIALS
Evidence at hand indicates that the great revival discussed by Robert E. Coleman (see page 10) may already be upon us. Revival is a period of renewed spiritual interest often characterized by emotionally charged evangelistic outreach. That we are in such a period is indisputable.
Consider: The Church in Africa has been growing at such a rapid rate that the continent may be predominantly Christian in just three decades. Christianity is also booming in South America; in some areas the evangelical community is growing up to fifteen times faster than the soaring birth rate. A similar spiritual groundswell is said to be building up in Eastern bloc nations, including the Soviet Union. Indonesia continues to experience the effects of revival. Multitudes of Koreans are coming alive to God. There are faint stirrings in Western Europe and India. And what is popularly known today as “the Jesus movement” has arrived in North America.
CHRISTIANITY TODAY reported the movement’s beginnings as far back as 1967 and 1968, before it had a name. (“The Jesus movement” is simply a youth-coined synonym for revival or—as it is called in Roman Catholic revival circles [see page 31]—renewal.) And we have been keeping abreast of developments since then in our news columns, though so much has been happening of late that it is hard to inscribe bench marks on every new outcropping of the Spirit. As a result of much attention from news media and because of the scope of the movement, especially among the young, we find that many church members—clergy included—are wondering whether it is all just a fad.
With so many thousands of young people involved, and given the reality of group-identity pressures, it can reasonably be assumed that cases of band-wagon Christianity do exist. Faddism is furthered by commercial exploitation—for example, a “Jesus People’s wrist-watch” marketed by a church for $14.95. But it can also be the product of church neglect or inability to follow through with new converts.
On a wide front, however, the movement defies description as a fad. As Time wisely noted, the “off-beat” element with the faddish characteristics accounts for only a fraction of those involved in what the weekly newsmagazine called “the Jesus revolution.” Moreover, many of the counter-culture converts—the “street Christians”—of the years 1967–70 are still hanging in there, spiritually stronger than ever. Countless students netted in campus revivals during those years carry on effective ministries today. Youth groups in some churches have continued to grow in numbers and spiritual maturity since sparks were ignited a few years ago. Home Bible-study groups among adults are multiplying. The charismatic phenomenon continues to spread in mainstream institutional churches, most noticeably among Roman Catholics.
Personal Bible study is a hallmark of the movement. Prayer for many is as natural as breathing. Testimonies are Christ-centered. Outreach occurs daily. Dynamic give-and-take fellowship exists. To some extent, there is genuine concern for the needs of others. A high code of morality prevails. Love, joy, and peace abound. These are descriptions not by leaders of the movement but by hard-bitten secular journalists who have covered the scene and come away deeply impressed.
Faddism is not the only criticism. Critics also fault the movement for anti-institutional sentiments about the Church, over-zealousness, social neglect, excessive emotionalism, experience-centeredness, little sense of repentance, informality in worship, non-conformist practices and appearances, too much emphasis on speaking in tongues, a super-subjective trust that avoids head-on confrontation of real-life issues.
There are excesses, defections, and dangers in the movement. Theologically defective cults such as The Way and the hate-tripping Children of God are making inroads. Some neo-Pentecostalists believe that unless one speaks in tongues he does not possess a full measure of the Spirit, and they judge accordingly. And a few of the new-type Christians have written off the institutional church as hopelessly inert.
Our most serious anxiety comes at the theological level. A much more substantial apologetic is needed at the root of the Jesus movement. Every movement is time-structured and ephemeral, and this one could be particularly short-lived if the converts are not instructed in depth in the basics of the faith. Christianity is ultimately founded on cognitive knowledge, historically anchored in the work of the cross and the Resurrection as recorded, not in myth or tradition or subjective experience, but in the propositional statements of Holy Scripture. Let there be no compromise at this point. And the Great Commission includes the admonition to teach, which is where the Church comes in. Nurture of the converts—not in a condescending way—is a duty of the older generation.
In some cases, however, the aberrations are overreactions against equally wrong conditions in churches: lifelessness, coldness in worship, lack of genuine fellowship and fervor, lack of soul-winning zeal, and the like. God may well be using certain sectors of the movement—communal street Christians, for instance—to teach us the importance of Christian community, of life together in the body of Christ. It is significant that revived Catholics sing “Spirit of the living God, fall fresh on us” (rather than “me”).
Institutional misgivings (denied by many Jesus-movement people, confirmed by others) may have enabled some to recapture the vitality and personal warmth of koinonia that the Church once had. They are a muted call for the churches to scrutinize the effectiveness of their structures, to realign priorities with scriptural mandates. This movement comes, after all, as water on the long-parched ground around many churches where the faith has either been abortively demythologized or lifelessly dogmatized. And to the extent that the new believers are out to integrate belief and experience in a biblical dimension, they have our unwavering support. We sense that this may be the Holy Spirit’s way of bringing revival to our society. If the Church turns its back, it does so to its own detriment.
The real challenge of the movement is twofold: whether the organized church can welcome these new Christians with love and patience, and whether the new Christians can reciprocate. We might well ask whether the times call not for evaluation of one another so much as for participation in the growing body of Christ.
Meanwhile the water of life Jesus promised is flooding through society today, and multitudes of spiritually thirsty people are drinking. So many are being influenced that it would not be surprising if Time selected Jesus Christ as its Man of the Year.
United Presbyterians And Angela Davis
The decision of the United Presbyterian Standing Committee on Church and Race to contribute $10,000 to the defense of Angela Davis has done more to alert United Presbyterians to the leftward turn of their leadership than any other action in recent years. The decision was made by people who, neither ignorant nor stupid, may favor changing the political structures of the United States. Yet it may turn out that the structures they have most undermined through this decision are those of the liberal establishment in their own church. And this may be all to the good.
In the Presbyterian context, the point in the Angela Davis controversy is not that she is black, nor does it have anything to do with her constitutional right to a fair trial. The question is why the United Presbyterian Church should contribute to the defense of a Communist. Two things should be said. First, no Communist on trial has ever lacked for funds or for attorneys before the courts of Justice in the United States. Angela Davis has no need of Christian money to ensure an adequate defense. Secondly, as a Communist, Miss Davis must be a dialectical materialist and a proponent of atheism. All Communists want to undermine and oppress the Church. Why should the United Presbyterian Church give money to one who, should she succeed in her ultimate objectives, would oppress the very church that aided her?
Plea For A Sympathizing Tear
Will the Presbyterian Church U. S. split?
“I hope not; I pray not,” declared its new moderator at the 111th General Assembly of the Southern denomination last month (see News, July 2 issue, page 31).
The vast majority of the 958,000 member church’s laymen and clergy “are loyal,” continued Dr. Ben Lacy Rose, an agreeable man of rather orthodox theology and liberal views about church polity and social action. He was referring to the razor-thin margin by which the restructure provision for the denomination’s synods passed and the avowed intent of a moderate-conservative faction within the church to pull out. Debate centered on whether restructure will make union with the more liberal United Presbyterian Church U. S. A. a foregone conclusion.
While admitting that the closeness of the vote (217 to 210) “worries me,” Rose told newsmen restructure will “not in any way make union any easier; in fact, it may make it harder.”
Others sharply disagreed. Andrew Jumper, pastor of St. Louis’ Central Presbyterian Church and a spokesman for the moderate-conservative coalition, predicted certain secession, beginning this year. “The handwriting is now on the wall very clearly,” said another longtime observer, noting that liberals appeared to be intransigent in their stance toward conservatives. (For example, a conservative-backed candidate for the church’s General Council—he would have been its first openly conservative member in recent denominational history—was defeated rather decisively by a liberal candidate.)
A split in the Presbyterian Church U. S. is all but inevitable. We view this prospect with sorrow. Historically, splinter groups have a rather poor record of success. The strength of this church lies in “the great middle,” and the restructure issue leaves the moderates in an intolerable position and seems certain to erode the conservative-moderate power-base. Conservatives will leave; how many is yet unclear. “If they leave,” said Dr. Rose, “it’s with our tears and with the breaking of our hearts.” The tearing asunder of a church should cause tears—by those on both sides.
If splitting is preferable to compromising essentials of biblical faith—and we think it is—then let each side stand where it must. But let there be Christian charity, and an amicable parting of the ways. Only thus will the body of Christ be spared further injury.
Why Smile?
Two dots and a half moon make a happy-face pin, a visual plea for smiles from the love generation. And for the older, not-so-now generation, “have a nice day” bumper stickers do the same thing. Happiness hucksters spread their simple message with zeal, challenging gloom, assaulting the blahs, drumming up optimism.
And meanwhile the war drags on, the goal of justice for all continues to elude us, drug addiction and alcoholism keep rising, unemployment and inflation hold us in a vise, dark rumors of environmental catastrophe terrify us.
Perhaps smile pins and nice-day stickers are a calculated attempt to put on a brave, happy face while the world falls apart. But the Christian can pack them full of meaning. He can give a resounding reason for the hope within him, for a nice day, for a happy face.
Space Martyrs
We join with men of good will everywhere in mourning the deaths of the Soyuz 11 crewmen. We extend deep condolences to their families and colleagues and to all those in the Soviet Union whose national pride has helped make possible that nation’s remarkable achievements in space.
In a sense, Georgy Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov, and Viktor Patsayev lost their lives while in the service of humanity. Their daring and dedication will continue to inspire men and women to explore the previously uncharted recesses of the universe. They died having set a new space-flight endurance record of twenty-four days and twenty-two hours.
The death of the cosmonauts serves us also with the reminder that science offers no ultimate guarantees. May it prod God-fearing people not to forgo intercession for those who will be taking the next risks. Our prayers for the Apollo 15 crew scheduled to lift off this month should be not only in the interests of their immediate safety but also for the overall good of space exploration, that it may promote authentic human progress.
The Right To Know
Delicate questions were raised by the unauthorized divulgence of the Pentagon papers on Indo-China.
Significantly, the New York Times and other news media privy to secret data in which the government was critical of its own conduct of the Viet Nam war did not claim a right to publish any and all classified material. They merely argued that the material in hand did not in fact injure national security. In essence, they were not debating the freedom of the press in a broad sense, but were contending that in this particular case the government erred in keeping the material classified. Dr. Daniel Ellsberg argues that he was doing his country a favor by making public non-sensitive aspects of the study.
Barry Goldwater contends that “if this country or any other nation allows each and every publisher to make his own decision on matters of national security—whether it be in the name of freedom of the press or on some other pretext—then the word ‘security’ has no further meaning for us as a nation. We might just as well invite the Soviets and the military overlords of Communist China to sit in with the President and members of the National Security Council when strategic questions are debated and decided.” He might have added that publishers will obviously differ on what endangers national security.
But what do we do with politicians who are overprotective of sensitive information? Understandably, they find it hard to separate political considerations from matters of national security. Further complexities arise through government officials’ custom of giving special briefings to newsmen. Every Washington newsman knows there are perpetual leaks of classified information—often on purpose.
In a free society, responsibility is not an option. It must be exercised by both newsmen and government officials. In the case of the Pentagon papers, we wonder why the Times did not avail itself of its rights under Section 552 of Title 5, United States Code. This section provides that “on complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency record improperly withheld from the complainant.” Should not the newspaper have filed such a complaint and demanded an official release of at least a portion of the papers rather than break the law by publishing secret information? They chose rather to risk conviction for endangering national security. Conceivably, they may yet face such charges. The Supreme Court merely struck down the government’s attempt to exercise “prior restraint” against publication.
The adversary relationship between newsmen and government officials is healthful in a free society. It is one of the things that distinguishes democracies from dictatorships. The risks entailed are far preferable to totalitarianism. Thus far, generally speaking, the news media have exercised commendable restraint, and we can only hope this will not deteriorate. The government can and should tighten up security to protect genuinely crucial information, on the one hand, and on the other hand be more candid about other data—even if that proves embarrassing. Leaks are inevitable, however, and the news media for their part must not begin to minimize the responsibility they share with government in this area. Indeed, the news media need to keep in mind that they have a direct stake in national security, for part of what that security is protecting is the right to know.
An existential ethic might well leave the whole problem to “fate” by letting individual norms prevail. But a truly Christian approach demands pursuit of a relevant revelational ethic. To assume this task is the responsibility of thinking Christians.
Plight Of Parochaid
The restrictions on parochaid handed down by the U. S. Supreme Court (see page 34) will work to Christian advantage over the long run. A previous decision properly noted that “it is not only the nonbeliever who fears the injection of sectarian doctrines and controversies into the civil polity, but in as high degree it is the devout believer who fears the secularization of a creed which becomes too deeply involved with and dependent upon the government.”
In his parochaid opinion, Justice William Brennan, a Roman Catholic, rightly argued that the very policing of religious educational facilities necessitated by parochaid would prove harmful to churches: “The picture of state inspectors prowling the halls of parochial schools and auditing classroom instruction surely raises more than an imagined specter of governmental ‘secularization of a creed.’ ”
Federal subsidies entail similar dangers. Brennan noted that “the Federal Government exacts a promise that no ‘sectarian instruction’ or ‘religious worship’ will take place in a subsidized building. The Office of Education polices the promise.” In one case, he said, federal officials demanded that a college cease teaching a course on the history of Methodism in a federally assisted building, even though the Supreme Court has declared that the Establishment Clause “plainly does not foreclose teaching about the Holy Scriptures or about the differences between religious sects in classes in literature or history.”
Brennan also pointed out that when a sectarian institution accepts state financial aid it becomes obligated under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment not to be selective in admissions policies and faculty hiring. The District Court in the Rhode Island case declared that with state subsidies parochial schools might lose control over not only which students should be enrolled but which teachers should be employed! “At some point,” the District Court said, “the school becomes ‘public’ for more purposes than the Church would wish. At that point, the Church may justifiably feel that its victory on the Establishment Clause has meant abandonment of the Free Exercise Clause.”
What the Supreme Court has not yet faced up to is how subtle sectarianism can be kept out of public schools. Indeed, this is why Roman Catholics and an increasing number of Protestants insist on training their own children in a Christian context. Public schools invariably impart “religion,” not in the sense of rites or doctrines, but on the equally if not more important level of value systems—a growing number of which are at odds with what is taught at home and in church. The problem might well bring on the next big controversy between church and state in America.
The Wrath Of God
Zedekiah, the last king of Judah (597–586 B.C.), was a proud man who did “evil in the sight of the Lord his God.” He was not alone in his wickedness, for Scripture tells us that “all the leading priests and the people likewise were exceedingly unfaithful, following all the abominations of the nations” (2 Chron. 36:14). Here were an apostate king, an apostate clergy, and an apostate people. Would God, could God let their wickedness go unjudged?
Scripture repeatedly asserts that God is longsuffering. His judgment on apostasy does not fall upon men or nations until he has given them plenty of opportunity to repent and thus avert judgment. But his patience does not extend indefinitely. Therefore Scripture urges that today we should repent, for tomorrow may be too late. As for Zedekiah and Judah, “the Lord, the God of their fathers, sent persistently to them by his messengers” (2 Chron. 36:15), because “he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place.” Here is the blazing love of God, the persistent entreaty that his people mend their ways, the extended arm of mercy to sinful men.
But the response to the divine initiative was negative. “They kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his word and scoffing at his prophets.” When they reached the point of no return, the wrath of God was kindled. The Scripture says, “There was no remedy.” The disease was deadly. The patient was moribund. In holy anger God brought an end to the kingdom, captivity to the people, the desolation of the sanctuary, and the sacking of the city of Jerusalem.
The so-called Christian nations of today, as well as churches, clergy, and people who despise God’s words and scoff at his prophets, may shortly face his wrath. He who is a God of wrath is first a God of love, however. Judgment need not come—if his people, those who are called by his name, will humble themselves and turn from their wicked ways.
